Marines leaving Iraq!!!!!

[PatekPhilippe]

Until you can cite a legal case that specifically says the War in Iraq is illegal and gives the basis for that...YOU LOSE. All you have is opinions and I have the law on my side.

show irrefutable proof, cited in a court case, that the war in Iraq was illegal..SPECIFICALLY.

making claims about this and that doesn't mean shit....LEGALLY you don't have a leg to stand on...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What did you do CurveLight...smash your keyboard again?

 

[CurveLight]

Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.

This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.

By what law is he basing his OPINION on?

Your hypocrisy is revealed yet again. Earlier you wanted to know what legal experts thought of the Judge dismissing the UA charge on Paradese so when you THINK you can find experts to back up your claim then you give credit but when legal experts reveal you for the arrogant idiot you are you suddenly try to dismiss their expertise as "opinion." lol.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Lord Goldsmith(the governments most senior legal adviser at the time) gave evidence to Chilcot this morning, to paraphrase, he thought the invasion would be illegal and told Bush and Blair this, they did not like it, he changed his mind just before the invasion and after a visit to the US.

This afternoon he will be cross examined on what caused his sudden epiphany.

By what law is he basing his OPINION on?

Your hypocrisy is revealed yet again. Earlier you wanted to know what legal experts thought of the Judge dismissing the UA charge on Paradese so when you THINK you can find experts to back up your claim then you give credit but when legal experts reveal you for the arrogant idiot you are you suddenly try to dismiss their expertise as "opinion." lol.....

Sorry. I have cited specific international and U.S. laws that granted express permission for the President, George W. Bush, to use military force in Iraq.

You have given NOTHING but opinions, obfuscation, spin...in other words you have presented NOTHING to back up your claim that the Iraq War was illegal according to any Court of Law in the U.S.A. that has NOT CONVICTED A SINGLE PERSON.

You lost again. Better luck next time.

 

[CurveLight]

You definately got some screws loose there pal...You better get checked out at a mental hospital. The exact words of the judge spoken in a Military court and recorded by a court stenographer.."The charge of unauthorized absence, Article 86, is dismissed as it's duplicative."

Why did he do this?

Here's why.
From Article 87


From Article 86:
absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

by missing movement..he absented himself from his place of duty....DUPLICATIVE....

Your dishonesty is purely ******* entertaining but also quite sad. You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing. Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy. If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy. Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.

Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:


"Stewart had already been convicted — and
reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist — of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."

Gee. That says he was convicted of being AWOL. Then read:


"Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile

(the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)


Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing. You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts. This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill. One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual. Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?

My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...

What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA. The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!

You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot? They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

Holy shit you're an idiot. His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement. The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA. By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your dishonesty is purely ******* entertaining but also quite sad. You just posted the evidence the two charges are completely different but you're so selfish and insecure you pretend they are the same thing. Then you quote the judge but totally ignore the other quote by the Judge where he agreed with the Soldier for why he refused to deploy. If you knew ANYTHING about the military you would know his not being sentenced to prison followed by a direct DisDis is a victory for refusing to deploy. Instead the judge dropped the UA charge and gave him a slap on the wrist.

Look at another case of a soldier refusing to deploy:


"Stewart had already been convicted — and
reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist — of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer."

Gee. That says he was convicted of being AWOL. Then read:


"Spc. Benjamin Stewart, 25, of the 2nd Stryker Cavalry
Regiment, pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq."
Soldier gets 6-month sentence for refusing to deploy to Iraq | Stars and Stripes Mobile

(the two sentences are from the same paragraph but I reversed the order to highlight the two charges are certainly different and not duplicative)


Since you have proven to be incapable of addressing obvious facts I need to point out this utterly crushes your "duplicative" claim because a Soldier cannot be convicted twice of the same thing. You totally fail to be honest about any of the facts. This is just like when you claimed Ready Reserves are all Drilling Units but completely ignored the fact the RR category has several sub-categories including the IRR who never Drill. One thing you have certainly Drilled home is you are an utterly thorough pathetic individual. Who the hell is so fucked up they quote the very evidence that proves them wrong only to claim it proves their claim correct?

My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...

What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA. The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!

You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot? They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

Holy shit you're an idiot. His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement. The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA. By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.

Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.

Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.

 

[CurveLight]

I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal. Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:

wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1

Then there's

War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers

I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother? Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.

and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal? Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better? Rotfl!

You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks. I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that. When you know the exact day let me know. We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after. Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call. Look forward to it PP!

 

[CurveLight]

My my my...your pathetic spin is laughable even to the stupidest lawyers in the United Staes...

What you are failing to see is that there were 2 SEPARATE incidences where he was ordered to deploy...the first one he didn't show for duty PRIOR TO HIS UNIT DEPLOYING so he was charged with being UA. The second and totally separate charge and incident of Missing Movement resulted when he didn't show up when his UNIT LEFT THE COUNTRY!!!

You know how I know they are 2 separate incidences you STUPID idiot? They have this thing called DOUBLE JEOPARDY...you cannot be tried for the same crime TWICE.

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

Holy shit you're an idiot. His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement. The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA. By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.

Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.

Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.

I know they are separate incidents you dumbass. I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes. That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions. Lol...you are a riot. You probably believe your own bullshit eh?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This is the first incident that resulted in a misdemeanor conviction. A conviction LAST SUMMER means a trial took place LAST SUMMER which was sometime between June21-September 21.

Stewart had already been convicted — and reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist — of being absent without leave when the bulk of the regiment deployed last summer.

This is the second incident and resulted in another conviction...a felony conviction.

pleaded guilty Wednesday to missing movement on Jan. 7, 2008, when he was scheduled to deploy to Iraq.

Double jeopardy prevents him from being tried and convicted twice for the same incident.

You lose again CurveLight.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I overlooked the part where the wee wee PP claimed the law says the invasion was legal. Someone already pointed out top UK law experts have stated it is illegal:

wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6143602&index=1

Then there's

War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers

I could also post 100 more links from legal experts from all over the world who prove it is illegal but why bother? Even when a US MILITARY JUDGE says Soldiers have grounds to refuse to deploy based on it being illegal you ignore that so there is nothing anyone can do but sit back and laugh at your stupid arrogant and pathetic displays of the worst kind of Nationalism.

and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal? Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better? Rotfl!

You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks. I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that. When you know the exact day let me know. We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after. Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call. Look forward to it PP!

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.

Otherwise...You lose again CurveLight. The law is on my side right now...all you have is opinions from a bunch of anti-war lawyers AND NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Holy shit you're an idiot. His unit had already left the country before being hit with missing movement. The fact they hit him with missing movement shows it is not the same as UA. By you pointing out double jeopardy you just showed why your dumbass claim is wrong and just like when you cited TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES to prove you are correct you're too arrogant to see you proved they are not duplicative.

Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.

Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.

I know they are separate incidents you dumbass. I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes. That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions. Lol...you are a riot. You probably believe your own bullshit eh?

Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty. They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission. The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".

Try again.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Don't smash your keyboard again...those things get expensive after 3 or 4 times...

 

[CurveLight]

and since all you have is opinion whereas I have the law on my side...YOU LOSE AGAIN!!!!

Now go pout and cry to momma that big meany Patek kicked your ass again.

How can the law be on your side when countless world top lawyers point out it is illegal? Suddenly experts on the law don't matter because you know better? Rotfl!

You said you were coming to boston in a couple of weeks. I look forward to buying you a beer, or if you prefer a shirley temple, I'll be happy to get you that. When you know the exact day let me know. We can meet at the Purple Shamrock and when you get there just use their landline phone to give me a ring to confirm you're there and I will arrive shortly after. Yes, I'll give you a cell number you can call. Look forward to it PP!

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.

Otherwise...You lose again CurveLight. The law is on my side right now...all you have is opinions from a bunch of anti-war lawyers AND NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.

You ignore the lawyers on the claim they are anti war? Got a link showing all those lawyers are anti war or is this another wee wee PP attempt to ignore the facts?

You also ignored the other part of my post. No worries, the fact you are a dishonest coward will be our little secret.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hint: You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.

 

[CurveLight]

Wow...you are just too stupid to explain legal concepts, like double jeopardy, to.

Perhaps you may want to consider finishing highschool before entering into any more discussions on this board.

I know they are separate incidents you dumbass. I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes. That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions. Lol...you are a riot. You probably believe your own bullshit eh?

Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty. They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission. The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".

Try again.

It was really entertaining how you quoted two different Articles from the UCMJ with two different definitions of the two different crimes to then try and convince everyone they are the same thing. That was funny. But not nearly as funny as you claiming you can ignore all the lawyers because they are anti-war. There really is no limit to how ridiculous you will get to try and maintain what is clearly a dumb ******* claim.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Please cite the court cases, legal precedents and laws specifically relating to the Iraq Use of Force Resolution being illegal to back up your claim.
Hint: You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.

 

[CurveLight]

Hint: You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.

ROTFL! Now you're just trying to convince yourself. Shut your eyes a little tighter.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I know they are separate incidents you dumbass. I used it to point out the charges are two different crimes. That's why the UCMJ has them listed under two different Articles with two different legal definitions. Lol...you are a riot. You probably believe your own bullshit eh?

Both charges relate to 2 different incidences of this soldier not reporting for duty. They BOTH involve absence from is unit without permission. The other court case you cite as proof the war is illegal consisted of ONE SINGLE INCIDENT so they went with ONE CHARGE due to the other one being "duplicative".

Try again.

It was really entertaining how you quoted two different Articles from the UCMJ with two different definitions of the two different crimes to then try and convince everyone they are the same thing. That was funny. But not nearly as funny as you claiming you can ignore all the lawyers because they are anti-war. There really is no limit to how ridiculous you will get to try and maintain what is clearly a dumb ******* claim.

Damn woman....calm down...you're going to have a heart attack... Now...about the legality of your CLAIMS and the legal precedents in a U.S. court of law concerning the IUOFA.....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Hint: You won't find anything in any search engine...so don't bother....you have NOTHING CurveLight...NOTHING to back up your CLAIMS.

ROTFL! Now you're just trying to convince yourself. Shut your eyes a little tighter.

Cite your specific case law regarding the Iraq Use of Force Agreement and it's legality.